Saturday, January 06, 2007
Regarding "bringing the war to a close"
I am in Charlottesville, having driven down here yesterday afternoon for celebration's in connection with my mother's 70th birthday so, yes, blogging has been light. It is a gorgeous spring-like morning, and right now we are sitting in comfy chairs in the Starbucks at "the Corner," just across from "the Grounds." Undoubtedly, some of you can picture the very place.
In Charlottesville the paper of record is the Washington Post, so I couldn't help but notice the first paragraph in its lead story this morning:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared yesterday that "it is time to bring the war to a close" and warned President Bush that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq would be unacceptable to the Democratic majorities that have just taken over Congress.
The Democrats are, like all good politicians, paying a lot of attention to their choice of words. Surely everybody wants to "bring the war to a close." The problem, of course, is that there is no way to do that by withdrawing our soldiers from Iraq. The war will rage on, and the ratio of civilian to military casualties will undoubtedly rise. What Pelosi and Reid would have written, if they were being intellectually honest, is that it is time to "bring America's involvement in the war to a close." Withdrawal may be wise for the United States, or it may not be, but it will not end the war and there is no avoiding the high probability that more people will die as a result.
There is more on nomenclature and other political aspects later in the article.
By releasing the sternly worded letter, Democratic leaders hoped to jump ahead of Bush and set the agenda for the weekend talk shows. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said the party wants to address even the terminology of the White House plan, defining it not as a "surge" but as an "escalation." "People are going to know [the president] has a very critical audience in the Democratic Congress on this proposal," he said.
Regardless of what one might think of the wisdom of entering into this war in the first place, is it really a good idea for the leaders of the House and Senate to enlist "weekend talk shows" in a campaign against what is fundamentally a tactical decision on the battlefield? The Democrats are trying to justify this by labeling a short-term fluctuation in force levels -- well within the range of other such fluctuations in the last four years -- as an "escalation." The point of the word, presumably, is to characterize any forthcoming deployment as different in kind from everyday war management decisions. That in turn justifies a specific Congressional decision.
The problem is, the Democrats can't even stick to their own script. Pelosi and Reid actually prefer the word "surge," presumably because it is in fact widely understood that any increase in force levels will be temporary.
"Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed," Pelosi and Reid wrote.
Then again, other Democrats think that surging troops is a new idea:
"A surge is not a new strategy. A surge is a new tactic that does nothing to change the underlying strategy that has so clearly failed," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
I, for one, find comfort in message discipline. When there is none, Congressional "oversight" looks more like rank jockeying for partisan advantage.
I am not persuaded that increasing force levels in Iraq will help, and when the president announces his plan I would like to hear the explanation (preferably from General Petraeus, who by all accounts is an extremely sharp and principled soldier). However, I also know that in the management of a war the addition or subtraction of 9,000 or even 20,000 soldiers is not a big deal. If we believe that a surge for a few months combined with some hard negotiating with Iraqis will create some space for a diminishment of the sectarian fighting, then it seems to me an effort worth making. If it hasn't worked by summer then we can always end our participation in the war. That remains an option, regardless of what happens in the next few months.
Given that the surge does not preclude the option of withdrawal down the road, why are the Democrats pushing so hard right now? I think it is because they believe that they have a shot at winning the White House in 2008, and that their chances are enhanced if we withdraw today. Why? First, if we withdraw during 2007 Democratic candidates will not then have to engage in their own civil war over what to do about Iraq or come off like yellow-bellies in the general election. Second, if after American withdrawal Iraq melts down into a genuine bloodbath that causes voters to wish we had stayed in, the Democrats hope that voters will blame Republicans.
32 Comments:
By 
skipsailing, at
Sat Jan 06, 11:10:00 AM:
this is the problem with your post TH:
In Charlottesville the paper of record is the Washington Post
A more agenda driven rag can scarcely be imagined.
In the meantime the Democrat party is setting out to once again demonstrate its utter fecklessness.
By Pudentilla, at
Sat Jan 06, 11:18:00 AM:
Kagan at the AEI said he wanted to "surge" for 18-24 months. So, maybe, "escalation" is the appropriate term. David Brooks thinks so.
All the generals the Decider fired this week had reservations about escalation because it can't be sustained without damaging the already frail structure of rotation and reserves. Should the need for troops arise in another theater, this "escalation" could leave the military without resources to face that challenge.
Jack Keene, calling for a large and lasting surge, suggests that the purpose of the surge will be to stabilize mixed Sunni/Shia neighborhoods in Bagdhad. Juan Cole, summarizing Al Hayat's reporting, suggests that there are few mixed neighborhood's left in Baghdad because the Shia policy of ethnic cleansing supported by the Maliki government, whose political power depends on Sadr, has been so successful.
According to the LA Times, some supporters of the escalation want to use the extra troops to confront al-Sadr and his forces. Time Magazine's account of the Mahdi army's "successess" in Bagdhad reasonably raise the question of whether 5 or 6 brigades is a sufficient number of troops for the daunting task. Unfortunately, the military doesn't have the resources to supply more troops. And the possibility remains that Sadr will simply go to ground for the 18 to 24 months of the "escalation," returning to claim Bagdhad when the troops leave, as inevitably they will.
Now, given all of this, it's possible that Democrats and Republicans (Smith, Hagel, Thune, Collins, Coleman, Wilson) whom Novak describes as opposing the escalation, are thinking less of November 2008 than they are of January 2007.
It is possible, in other words, to credibly argue that bipartisan Congressional opposition to plans to escalate our military presence in Iraq, which happens to reflect the sentiment of 89% of Americans, according to CNN, are motivated by a considered judgment that the escalation plan is poorly thought out and poses more certain risks than possible rewards.
By Pudentilla, at
Sat Jan 06, 11:21:00 AM:
correction: Novak didn't identify Heather Wilson as an opponent to the escalation plan. This article in Salon did.
Sorry for the error.
By 
, at
Sat Jan 06, 11:52:00 AM:
The NY Times has an excellent article on this topic today as well.
AEI's Frederick W. Kagan released an expanded report with General Jack Keane yesterday
General Petraeus seems to be one of the authors of our military’s new counterinsurgency plan. My guess is he knows a little more about the subject than, let's say, Pelosi.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 01:11:00 PM:
To surge or not to surge, that is the question. Given the history of this administration's foreign policy fecklessness (as evidenced below) is it really going to make any difference?
Armed Mexicans Attack Unarmed National Guard Troops on US Soil
“[T]he news story received scant coverage by the mainstream news media…It's a story that should outrage all Americans including President George W. Bush.”
“US National Guard troops are prohibited from carrying any type of weapon and have been ordered not to confront lawbreakers coming across the border. The Guard troops are not allowed to apprehend illegal entrants, as well.”
“‘Basically, the National Guard troops are doing what private groups such as the Minuteman Project have done at US borders -- observe and report,’ said a Homeland Security Department official.”
“‘This is one of the most expensive dog-and-pony shows dreamed up by the Washington establishment in recent history. Imagine using trained troops on the US border unarmed and prohibited from taking action. It's a scam,’ says Mike Baker, a political analyst.”
Could such circumstances have motivated the Founders to establish the process of Impeachment and Trial?
By skipsailing, at
Sat Jan 06, 02:16:00 PM:
And now we see demagoguery at its finest.
(1) Pundentilla relies on the statements of outgoing commanders to cast expersions on the yet to be announced direction change in Iraq. This is demagoguery because it was pudentilla and people like her who complained endlessly about the prior direction. A direction that was presumably the result of the orders and opinions of these same outgoing commanders. In short, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
(2) Next we have "allen" who wants to impeach Bush because conduct on the Mexican American border is simply not to his liking. Having lived on or near the border for more than twenty years I know that the current problem is the direct result of the prior position of people like "allen". For example it is quite clear that Pete Wilson's political career was ended by liberals who hurled accusations of racism at the former governor simply because Wilson expressed concerns about our border. Yet now we have "allen" pompously stating that the exact oppasite of the former liberal position is now the only correct position.
Demagoguery, pure and simple. The American left has no memory and no shame. Further, they blithely assume that no one else will recall their prior statements.
What is it like to be so shameless? Is your hatred so all consuming that you've abandonned principle? It certainly seems so.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 02:41:00 PM:
I did not hesitate a millisecond in making my comment. Moreover, I did not doubt for a millisecond that it would garner the quality reply supplied by skipsailing.
Skipsailing should CAREFULLY read the comment. While I am not pretentious enough to attribute motive to the those quoted in the newspaper article, I can say that as a Texan and a lover of Mexican culture, feel none of the type of unbridled hatred attributed to me Mr. Skipsailing. Perhaps, as seems often the case, he is projecting and sublimating.
When last I looked at a map, Mexico was a foreign country; hence, it falls within the domain of American foreign policy, as does Iraq. Furthermore, the rules of engagement under which the Guard is working on the border are not dissimilar to the same disabilities under which they and the regular armed forces are functioning in Iraq, Afghanistan et al. To this extent, what happens on the border with Mexico may be illustrative of the feckless foreign policy of the Bush administration.
By the way, Skipsailing, please quote me in justification of your silly gesticulatory comment, “Yet now we have "allen" pompously stating that the exact oppasite of the former liberal position is now the only correct position.” I stated nothing of the sort, pompously or otherwise. Indeed, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do you?
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 02:45:00 PM:
Time for the demacrats to end illegal imagration and agree to build a fence oppose the North American Union and get us out of the UN and end all those pork barel spending or am i asking for too many miricles at one time
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 02:47:00 PM:
Iraq: A Turning Point. At this event, Mr. Kagan and General Keane will present their final report, which outlines how the United States can win in Iraq and why victory is the only acceptable outcome. With Reports from Iraq from Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 02:50:00 PM:
TH I believe you have fundamentally misread the political situation.
Sheehand and Conyers gave Rahm Emmanuel a spanking and he's become compliant.
The "war" will end and we will be chased out of Iraq by Al Qaeda and Iran as Dems demand. This is the consensus of Dems, and they believe this policy has the broad support of the American people (unquestionably it has the unanimous support of the Media).
Of course Al Qaeda and Iran will follow us home, (and yes surrender is in the air in Afghanistan as well by Dems) and we will lose cities, but Dems feel that this is "normal" and we should just "live with it" because "we deserve it" etc.
The alternative of course for Reps in 2007 is to raise and run as "nuke em all" wrt Iran, Pakistan, and Saud.
Very likely we will see Dems position themselves publicly as the "defeat" party offering a "negotiated surrender" to bin Laden (they've already floated this trial balloon) and Reps position themselves as "use nukes"
By skipsailing, at
Sat Jan 06, 03:12:00 PM:
my my.
Where were you allen when I was joining light up the night on the mexican border in San Diego?
My point remains: it was the Democrats on the border who drove out any early discussion of controlling the flow of immigrants. Now that this flow has reached a crisis point, people such as yourself are running for cover by stating that the problem should be handled better by the current president.
That's demagoguery allen. There is no better word for it.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 03:15:00 PM:
The “Dems” will have a lot of Republican support for abandoning Iraq. At the moment, the President has little Congressional support for a surge, with Messrs. McCain and Lieberman being exceptions.
For the record, I have and continue to believe that Iraq must be held by the United States at all costs; it being the most strategic piece of real estate in the world today. That being the case, I would expect a decades’ long American presence, preferably in Kurdistan. I am not, nor have I ever been interested in Iraq’s WMD program or its support of terrorism as justification for the overthrow of the hostile Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. My overriding interest is the Strait of Hormuz and the power its control gives the United States over the EU and China, particularly.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 03:32:00 PM:
No, Skipsailing, it's dementia.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jan 06, 05:19:00 PM:
allen, learn what sublimating means before you use it. "Dementia" is used loosely in political conversation to mean any kind of bad thinking, so I should give you a pass on that.
Pudentilla, again with the polls as evidence that you must be right. What is it with you guys on the center-to-left about this? Why not take a poll whether Chicago is west of Detroit?
By Pudentilla, at
Sat Jan 06, 06:12:00 PM:
"Pudentilla, again with the polls as evidence that you must be right."
Let's assume we live in a republican democracy where elected officials represent the interests of the constituents who elect them.
Let's assume those officials have to make a judgment about a policy proposed by the executive branch.
Now if the executive branch had made an assertion of fact - for example, regarding the geographical location of Chicago or Detroit, I would agree with you that it would seem foolish to poll the population (although given the Decider's position on the age of the Grand Canyon, I am perhaps a bit of an optimist on this).
But where the executive is making a choice about a policy - say, for example, whether or not to escalate a war - might it not be reasonable, thoughtful, well considered, for an elected official charged with oversight of the executive to consider what his/her constituents and the citizenry in general think about the proposed policy.
I am not arguing that they bound by the will of the people - we are assuming a representative, not a direct democracy. One allows always for individual conscience in a representative democracy. One guards always against a tyranny of the majority in any democracy (although this particular policy does not appear to raise any question of individual liberties vs majoritarian will).
When 89% of the population do not approve of a policy proposed by the executive, however, should elected representatives not, at least, consider the fact, that the citizens they represent think it's a bad idea. Is there something undemocratic about this effort?
I would find the discussion more enlightening in general if skipsailing and the assistant village idiot could a) identify the mission the escalation would support; and b) defend the escalation as the most reasonable approach for achieving the mission; and c) assess whether the risk that escalation poses for our military readiness is worth the costs of the mission poses; and
d) enlighten me on what the current definition of "victory in Iraq" is.
The current state of the discussion appears to be trashing anyone who disagrees the Decider - i.e., the focus is not on the merits of the policy itself but, but rather on the partisan or ideological identity of those who object to the policy.
skipsailing does make a fair point that the Decider has a perfect right to fire his generals. Thus, the fired generals are articulating an analysis the Decider has rejected. It's seems fair to point out, however, that Jim Miklaszewski of NBC reported this week that an adminstration official "admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one."
It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that the objections of the fired generals remains the accepted military analysis of the benefits and risks of escalation.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 06:17:00 PM:
Obviously, some “regular” contributors here will find any actual or implied criticism of the administration’s foreign policy offensive, perhaps, demagogic. Some will feel the need to set me (a “Liberal”) straight. In doing so, I hope to see in such critiques answers or rational comments addressing the following:
___The RoE under which the National Guard troops operate on the Mexican border are appropriate.
___Unarmed troops being placed in dangerous terrain is appropriate.
___The president is fulfilling his oath of office regarding securing America’s border with Mexico.
___Quotations are inferior to expressions of unsupported personal opinion.
___Quotations represent the commenter’s personal viewpoint, in the entirety.
Assistant Village Idiot,
Re: sublimate
I do and I did.
Nice try, but no cigar.
If you have some comment to make relative to the issues I raised, I would be interested. By the way, you always find it necessary to personalize conflict or negotiation?
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 07:04:00 PM:
How strong is Republican support for the “surge”?
Lott may vote, “No”.
“Even many Republicans appear unenthusiastic about troop increases. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said Thursday night on MSNBC's "Hardball" that he might say no to the surge. ‘I want to know what it all is…’"
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 07:13:00 PM:
Lott is just playing hard to get. In the end, he will be in favor of it.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 07:25:00 PM:
Assistant Village Idiot,
I just recalled reading some research yesterday on bias at a great blog. You might find it a useful read as well.
In Case You Weren't Depressed Yet
Enjoy!
;-D
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 07:29:00 PM:
Anonymous,
Re: Lott is just playing hard to get. In the end, he will be in favor of it.
That is certainly helpful, isn’t it? What is he trying “to get”, would you say?
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 07:50:00 PM:
Allen,
Lott as all politicians is worried about votes. He doesn't want to be seen as a "yes man" for the president in case this gambit doesn't pan out. However, all the Congress can do is tell the President to stop by limiting funds. They won't do that, because they will be blamed for losing Iraq and any and all consequences of such actions.
The decision is the Commander in Chief's to make and it would be unprecedented for congress to restrict funds to the CIC in a time of war. Even in Vietnam they only removed foreign aid after we already were out of Vietnam.
There will be a lot of huffing and puffing this week, but in the end, they will let Bush try one more time in Iraq. There will probably not even a vote where anyone could trace their views back later in case things go badly.
We would not be at this juncture if Bush didn’t know he had the congress’ reluctant backing.
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 07:57:00 PM:
By the way, a little more on this topic. The results of a surge may not be apparent 12 months from now at the end of 2007 when everyone is gearing up for the 2008 elections. It will be very hard to be a strong supporter of this gambit right now. I must praise McCain for willing to take that risk.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jan 06, 08:08:00 PM:
I'm continually amazed at the grand number of people in this country who think that Congress really has a say in foreign policy. It's entirely possible, and even likely, that the famous 'War Powers Act' would be struck down by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional infringement upon the powers of the Executive were it ever formally challenged, and no sitting President has ever publically acknowledged the legitimacy of the Act. As Anonymous said above, with the exception of cutting funding to the armed forces (i.e. political suicide), all the various votes and resolutions on this troop movement and that are nothing but PR and playing politics; the final decision rests with the President.
By cakreiz, at
Sat Jan 06, 08:28:00 PM:
Surge is a soft drink- I still prefer the Vietnam translation- escalation. If I thought surge would work, I'd be for it. My instinct is that it's wishful thinking.
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 08:44:00 PM:
Question is moot. Reid and Pelosi sent a letter demanding a pullout in 4-6 mos "or else." Cindy Sheehan (and more importantly John Conyers) made it a point to Rahm Emmanuel, and got it across.
Dems WILL force a withdrawal by cutting off funds, their supporters (Dem voters) and the Media demand it. Also of course Afghanistan (we can hardly hold it after being chased out of Iraq).
Contrary to Steny Hoyer, Dems are entirely happy with the prospect of a nuclear Iran, particularly if it "wipes Israel off the map" since their party's base would celebrate such an event. [It's well known that the anti-semitism of White Liberals is matched only by the African American community, see: Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, etc.] Dems have by pressure from their activist base decided to surrender to Al Qaeda (as various trial balloons have been floated) as well as Iran
[If Dems were serious about Iran's nukes they'd support military action. Instead the default Dem position is that the military and military action is in all cases "evil and stupid" see John Kerry]
So we will get a withdrawal of funds, and a defeat of our troops in the field by Dems and Al Qaeda and Iran just as Dems hoped. Meawhile a nuclear Iran drifts closer to a strike on Israel or vice versa.
Iran and Pakistan-Al Qaeda (Osama's boys control half of Pakistan outright) have made it clear they want to kill us. Dems have made it clear they plan to surrender first. Iraq is a sideshow to this, except as a demonstration of will and the ability to project force in the neighborhood.
Bush may be an incompetent but at least will fight sometimes. Pelosi and company think fighting is stupid, why not pay off Al Qaeda they way they pay off the Nation of Islam or Al Sharpton?
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 10:14:00 PM:
Anonymous,
Thank you for the courteous reply.
I must, however, take exception; Senator Lott does not need the votes. Doubtless, he is angling for something, but the question is what. With the “Number Two” Republican in the Senate behaving thus, the success of the enterprise is doubtful.
Ordinarily, I would agree with your assessment of the President’s staff having done a preliminary head count before undertaking the surge initiative. Such prudential behavior has not been the hallmark of this administration, though; therefore, it may well be the case that all the players are truly in the dark at this stage.
My first post dealt with RoE and the stationing of unarmed troops at the Mexican border. The similarities of this and reports coming out of Iraq along the same lines, I had hoped would stimulate the examination of current foreign policy. Alas, that was not to be, puerile ad hominem usurping constructive discussion and/or debate. So, again, thank you for the courteous reply.
By K. Pablo, at
Sat Jan 06, 10:56:00 PM:
I wonder if liberalized ROE wouldn't in itself be a force multiplier worth at least a division of surge troops....
By , at
Sat Jan 06, 11:27:00 PM:
what happens on the border with Mexico may be illustrative of the feckless foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Or any administration going back to the 1960's...or even 1950's.
Seriously, when is the last time anyone saw US immigration law along the Mexican border actually be enforced vigorously?
Some 10's of millions didn't get here overnight.
By allen, at
Sat Jan 06, 11:49:00 PM:
Anonymous,
The failure to secure the border has been decades in the making. Until recently, it didn’t matter all that much according to some; overall traffic moved back and forth to the benefit of both countries. However, when the United States is confronted with having to absorb upwards of 25-35% of Mexico’s population over the next 10-20 years, without reciprocity and with none of the benefits and all the responsibilities of sovereignty, something must be done. Unfortunately, the problem has peaked on Mr. Bush’s watch – nothing personal.
What, I wonder, would be the response of Mexican citizens residing in the northern Mexican states to joining the United States? How would American’s view such incorporation?
K. Pablo,
A number of military bloggers claim that liberalized RoE would have precisely the effect you ponder. May I suggest Westhawk and Oak Leaf at Polipundit to start?
By allen, at
Sun Jan 07, 01:18:00 AM:
K. Pablo,
An article by Westhawk at TCS Daily:
Bush Risks Losing Control of Iraq Policy
By K. Pablo, at
Sun Jan 07, 09:18:00 AM:
Thanks, allen. BTW the leadership void regarding border security is one of my main gripes with this admin. I'm watching McCain for this very reason.
By , at
Mon Jan 08, 11:41:00 PM:
Are you glad we did,nt have these lilylivers during WW II we would all be speaking german and have a furer instead of a president
